House drops Confederate Flag ban for veterans cemeteries

politico.com ^ | 6/23/16 | Matthew Nussbaum

[ColdOne]

A measure to bar confederate flags from cemeteries run by the Department of Veterans Affairs was removed from legislation passed by the House early Thursday.

The flag ban was added to the VA funding bill in May by a vote of 265-159, with most Republicans voting against the ban. But Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) both supported the measure. Ryan was commended for allowing a vote on the controversial measure, but has since limited what amendments can be offered on the floor.

[DiogenesLamp]

Nonsense. When there's a war, you cut off the resources that enable the other side to fight and win the war. In that sense, cotton did have "obvious military value." The Confederate leadership certainly thought it did and could win the war.

And of what Military value was Cotton? It certainly had trade value, but would it have won any victories for the South because people of Europe were wearing clothes?

As I have pointed out, they didn't seem to want for guns or powder in those early battles. Certainly they seemed to acquire enough despite the blockade. But what the blockade did do is scare away normal trade, and funnel the vast bulk of the existing trade to New England.

Militarily it served little purpose, but economically, and to prevent the establishment of economic based alliances with Europe, it was very effective.

Idiocy. That's your Marxist whiny baby slight of hand: "They told me it was all about slavery. Waaah. Actually it was all about money." Actually it was neither.

It was pretty much about money. As Charles Dickens noted, Millions acquired by the North and Lost by the South. It was only a question of where those Millions would end up.

Once the fighting started people rallied to one side or the other.

Well especially since the President started throwing Legislators in Jail, and locking up dissidents. Not showing how much you agreed with him could end you up in jail.

Lincoln -- or any president -- couldn't simply collapse before secessionist subversion and Confederate demands.

What demands? That they not have a foreign power commanding cannons overlooking the entrance to their primary port city? That seems a pretty reasonable demand to me, and do not forget that it only became a demand long after numerous "requests" and offers of payment were ignored.

If Davis had thought it was all about money for Lincoln and the North, he had only to resist the impulse to attack and let the Northerners' "real motives" become clear.

I think Lincoln's secret mission played a big role in pushing Davis' hand. One does not engage in secrecy for an effort at resupply, especially after you have informed your opposition that "resupply" is your intention.

The Confederate forces surrounding the Fort did not know at the time what this flotilla of ships and men would do, but I expect their leadership knew full well that it had been given secret orders. For all Confederate military knew, they might soon be in the pincers of an attack from both the Sea and the Fortress, which would have been an untenable military position.

I've seen orders that they were intending to do nothing until they saw another ship rendezvousing with the other ships 10 miles off the coast of the Charleston Lighthouse. At that point, they realized they were in a precarious position with the Guns of the Fort on one side, and the Guns of those ships, however many there might be, and whatever armament they may have possessed, on the other side.

If it were an attack, they would be fools to wait for it. If it were not an attack, then why were there secret orders?

Meaning slavery wasn't a "real issue." Your words.

It wasn't a "real issue" as to why Soldiers were marched across borders.

[DiogenesLamp]

Then there was the case of the Powhattan flying "English colors" when she first approached Pensacola (site of Fort Pickens)

This was really a funny sort of "resupply" mission.

[x]

And of what Military value was Cotton?

You've said Southern exports and the money they generated were at the root of the conflict. What do you think those exports were? Cotton. Southern leaders said Cotton was king and it could win them independence and empire. So why is it suddenly not important? If everything secessionists said about cotton over the years was true and everything they expected cotton exports to bring them was possible, any US government at war would be stupid and negligent not to stop the cotton trade. Or do you really expect that the CSA could do whatever they wanted to hurt the USA and the USA couldn't strike back at them? Are you really that thick? You may even be one of those people who thinks we fought WWII because we wanted to destroy our economic competitors.

But what the blockade did do is scare away normal trade, and funnel the vast bulk of the existing trade to New England.

What a blockade does is block trade. What else is a blockade supposed to do? But what would New England have to do with it? Most of America's exports once the cotton trade bottomed out would have been things like grain and maybe metals or timber. Just what we were importing, I don't know, but New York (with its access to the products of the Great Lakes States) would have been the main port. It's confusing. You spend months railing against New York. Now all of a sudden you hate New England more. "Boo, evil New England" pops up all over the place, and New York City is forgotten.

As Charles Dickens noted, Millions acquired by the North and Lost by the South. It was only a question of where those Millions would end up.

Charles Dickens was no economist and he really hated Americans. He wasn't here in the US and was just talking off the top of his head.

[DiogenesLamp]

Doesn't everybody know by now that Northerners participated in the slave trade? So did the other maritime powers of the Western World. So did Southerners, though they weren't building and sailing their own ships to the extent that Northerners, or Britons, or French or Dutch or Spanish or Portuguese were. Don't be the person who pretends he's just discovered what everybody else has known for years.

The point here is that the Northerners DOMINATED the slave Trade, and thereafter DOMINATED the cotton (produce of slaves) trade. They were up to their eyeballs in profit from slavery, and their main objection was that their profits would stop.

That is why I am preoccupied with this map.

It shows the money coming in, but it doesn't show the money going out. (In the form of Cotton and other goods being shipped to Europe.)

Somewhere i've seen tallies of shipments going out from various Southern ports, and If I can find that info again, and plot their values on the map, I believe it will show the value going out to be upside down of that Map posted above, with the Dominant value going out being exported from the Southern States, while the Northern states with four times the population, were only producing 25% of the total export value.

To simplify the point, the North was making huge profits off of slavery through their control of the import and export traffic and through their control of the laws.

The vote at the Constitutional Convention was on whether the slave trade could not be abolished until 1808. It was intended as a concession to Georgia and South Carolina (and some sources say North Carolina).

That is contrary to what this book is alleging. This book is making it clear that the importation concession was to "New England" interests.

[x]

The point here is that the Northerners DOMINATED the slave Trade, and thereafter DOMINATED the cotton (produce of slaves) trade. They were up to their eyeballs in profit from slavery, and their main objection was that their profits would stop.

But they didn't actually. They were a part of the slave trade and a part of the cotton trade, but they never dominated either. Both were international and there were plenty of other players who had a larger role in both.

That is why I am preoccupied with this map.

Obsessed is more like it.

That is contrary to what this book is alleging. This book is making it clear that the importation concession was to "New England" interests.

So you believe your book rather than the people who were actually there in the room when the Constitution was being debated and voted on? Go here for example.

Southern Wealth and Northern Profits by Thomas Prentice Kettell was a tract that purported to show that Northern wealth depended on the cotton planters. Stephen Colwell examined the same data in Five Cotton States and New York and came to the conclusion that it was the cotton states that were dependent on New York.

Planters from the Deep South states bought things from New York and invested their money there and acted like they hadn't actually given the Northerners money for the things they bought. They wanted to have their cake and eat it too.

The bigger picture is that the regions were interdependent, but the physiocratic or mercantilist idea that agriculture or foreign exchange was the sole root of wealth is seriously flawed.

Anyway, all this stuff is old hat. Everything has been discussed to death over the years and nothing you've said is particularly new or interesting or valuable.

[PeaRidge]

I also read that the steamers had loaded British coal for the trip. Wondering about the significance of this? Anyone know?

[PeaRidge]

Specifically Massachusetts.

[Liberty Valance]

Pyew! Smells like burning overwrought acrimony in here. ;o)

[PeaRidge]

“Anyway, all this stuff is old hat. Everything has been discussed to death over the years and nothing you’ve said is particularly new or interesting or valuable.”

Actually this is just the opposite of the truth.

Of all the threads on this topic in my years here, this is the closest to the truth I have witnessed. Kettell’s book unravels the complexities with brevity, and Diogenes’ self described evolution is encouraging.

Thank you.

[BroJoeK]

rustbucket: "You mentioned Jackson and Calhoun.
Perhaps you don't understand their objectives concerning the 1828 Tariff of Abominations. "

Oh, but I do.
I also understand there were a lot of mixed feelings and political cross-dressers, so to speak, on this issue.
Both Calhoun & Jackson supported the bill, though seemingly for too-clever political reasons.
And a majority of New Englanders opposed it, because of it's high tariffs on their raw materials, especially wool.
After passage, and Jackson's election as President, he took no immediate action to rescind it, launching the nullification crisis with South Carolina.

Again, the Tariff of Abominations illustrates that there were people for, and others against, in every region of the country.
It was not strictly "North vs. South", far from it.

rustbucket: "In 1833, after South Carolina had voted for nullification over the tariff issue, a bill was passed in 1833, the so called 'Compromise Tariff of 1833' that gradually reduced tariffs over a period of ten years."

Sure, and simultaneously, President Jackson signed a "Force Bill" "...explicitly authorizing the use of military force to enforce the tariff."

"In response to South Carolina's nullification claim, Jackson vowed to send troops to South Carolina to enforce the laws.
In December 1832, he issued a resounding proclamation against the 'nullifiers', stating that he considered 'the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed'.
South Carolina, the President declared, stood on 'the brink of insurrection and treason', and he appealed to the people of the state to reassert their allegiance to that Union for which their ancestors had fought.
Jackson also denied the right of secession: 'The Constitution ... forms a government not a league ...
To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union is to say that the United States is not a nation.'[96] "

Note that term, "at pleasure" again.

rustbucket referring to the 1860 Morrill tariff House vote: "To get a no vote that exceeds the yes vote, you would have to assume all abstaining Democrats and Southern Oppositionists and Americans would vote 'no' and about 13 of the 15 abstaining Republicans would vote no.
The 13 of 15 is approximate because the source's vote breakdowns don't match the final 105 to 64 total exactly. "

Possibly they taught math a little different when I went to school?
My numbers show something different:

1. Morrill passed the house in May 1860 by a vote of 105 to 64.
   That's a margin of 41 votes, and a tie vote defeats the motion.

2. 55 members abstained, which is 14 more than needed to defeat it.

3. Nine of those 55 we know for certain supported Morrill, because they were "paired" with absent members who opposed it.
   That still leaves 46, enough to defeat Morrill, had they been more aggressively pursued.

4. Of those 46 needed votes, 33 were Democrats or Southern opposition, seemingly a light lift for more determined anti-Morrill people.
   That leaves just eight more required.

5. There were 13 Republican abstentions, which must mean that, in fact, they opposed the bill but feared bucking their party.
   Since two Republicans did vote against, those others could likely be flipped.

   There were 7 Northern Democrats and 5 Southern Opposition party who voted for Morrill, who might also have seen the light, had they felt more political heat.

So, eight more required from a pool of 25 seems to me not necessarily impossible to do, if the anti-Morrill people had been more determined to do it.
Or, just as important: had the vote looked closer, they could have negotiated for better terms.

Finally, it's important to note that in 1859 (18%) and 1860 (10%) the US ran huge balance of trade deficits, meaning we imported $86 million more in those years than exported.
Remember, it's imports, not exports, which paid US duties and so provided most of Federal revenues.
So, huge balance of trade deficits meant Federal revenues were actually coming from money borrowed to pay for imports, and that was, in turn, eventually paid for by large specie transfers.

My point is: in the end, Europeans' massive purchases of US Southern cotton were paid-for by US purchases of European manufactured goods.
If the US reduced its imports of European goods, we could expect them to purchase less US cotton.
Trade is a two-way street and must, ultimately, balance out.

rustbucket: "This should put an end to your claim that "only passed the House (but not the Senate) because 55 Democrats & others friendly to the South abstained.
You are assuming that the 15 abstaining Republicans were "friendly" to the South."

In fact, two Republicans did vote against Morrill, and we have to assume the 15 who abstained did so rather than join their two colleagues, for fear of party discipline.
So flipping some of those votes was just a matter of addressing their concerns, which a more determined anti-Morrill group would have done.

Point is: in a matter of allegedly "deep concern" to the Deep South, it does not appear to me they tried all that hard for victory in the House.
Possibly they understood the Senate would block it anyway, and therefore defeat in the House was not so important after all?

Regardless, those who later touted Morrill as the great "reason for secession" a la the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations", are just reading back into that time emotions which were not then actually felt.

[BroJoeK]

PeaBrain referring to Lincoln's alleged "secret orders": "Now you have Brojoker.
All of this is from the "Official Records" as well as various biographies."

But your buddy DiogenesLamp implied those order were still secret and unknown to us today, when in fact they were first published in the New York Times later in 1861.
So there is nothing "secret" about them today.

Nor is there any mystery as to what they ordered.
These "secret" orders said the same thing that Lincoln directly told South Carolina Governor Pickens at the time:
Lincoln's mission was to resupply-only Fort Sumter and no reinforcement would be attempted so long as they met no resistance.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "And I say again, what possible use does a 're-supply' mission have for secret orders? "

So, now do you admit we know perfectly well what those "secret orders" said?
If so, then you also know they said just what Lincoln told South Carolina Governor Pickens directly: resupply only, no reinforcement if not resisted.

Remember, President Buchanan's similar mission in January, Star of the West was fired on and withdrew.
Doubtless Lincoln hoped his resupply ships would have better luck.

[BroJoeK]

PeaBrain: "Pickens was advised of a resupply by a low level clerk with no written evidence.
Lincoln ordered reinforcement."

So, you're going to blame Jefferson Davis' order to start Civil War on a "low level clerk"?
The fact is that Lincoln's message to Governor Pickens said the same thing as his orders to his ship captains.

PeaBrain: "April 4, 1861...object is, to reinforce Fort Sumter.
Winfield Scott, Approved by A. Lincoln"

Lincoln's final orders to Fox and all ship captains came through Secretary of War Cameron or Secretary of Navy Wells and are dated April 6.
They all say the same thing Lincoln told SC Governor Pickens: resupply-only, if not resisted.

[BroJoeK]

PeaBrain: "What you report is a communication from the Secretary of the Navy to a commander that was instructed to turn over authority to another man under different orders.
It says nothing about Fox. You made that up.
Lincoln's documented direct orders to the mission commander Fox was for reinforcement."

Lincoln's final orders to both Fox and all ship captains, dated April 6 and issued through Secretaries Cameron & Wells, said the same thing Lincoln told SC Governor Pickens: resupply-only, if not resisted.

You can read them yourself at the link above.

[PeaRidge]

Regarding Lincoln's intentions at Ft. Sumter, Brojoker said “These orders exactly match what Lincoln told South Carolina Governor Pickens.”
Pickens was advised of a resupply by a low level clerk with no written evidence. Lincoln ordered reinforcement.

Reinforce was the order from the President, herewith documented.

April 4, 1861
To: Lieut. Col. H.L. Scott, Aide de Camp

This will be handed to you by Captain G.V. Fox, an ex-officer of the Navy. He is charged by authority here, with the command of an expedition (under cover of certain ships of war) whose object is, to reinforce Fort Sumter.

Winfield Scott
Approved by A. Lincoln

[PeaRidge]

You gave this article from the newspaper. And it says:

“SIR: This letter will be handed to you by Capt G.V. FOX, ex-officer of the navy, a gentleman of high standing as well as extraordinary nautical ability. He is charged by high authority here with the command of an expedition (under cover of certain ships of war) whose object is to reinforce Fort Sumter.”

Your own source puts the lie to your assertion.

[BroJoeK]

PeaBrain: "Brojoker making things up again: “50% is more realistic for 1860.” BroJoe, as I have told you several times, you are not understanding your own data or correctly using it."

No, I'm referring you to a different source (page 605), one I think more accurate.
It paints a somewhat different picture than those used by pro-Confederate, beginning here:

1. For 1859 exports totaled $293 million about 5% more than the $279 you reported.
   But that's just the beginning.

2. It also shows 1859 imports as $345 million, or $66 million more than the $279 million exports you report.
   And remember, it's not exports but rather imports which pay the tariffs that provided Federal revenues.
   So the question is: where did money come from to pay for $345 million in imports?

3. Well, your numbers for cotton, rice & sugar seem OK, since those doubtless came from Deep South states.
   But those add up to about half of total 1859 imports of $345 million.

4. Everything else is subject to interpretation & dispute.
   Tobacco then & now was grown almost as much in Union states as in Southern states of the Confederacy.
   Naval stores in 1860 still came in part from Northern forests.
   Molasses came from sugarcane grown in the South, but also from sugar beets grown in the North.
   That huge "other" category is so undefined, and so large, it should be tossed out entirely as a "product of the South".

5. Bottom line: of the $345 million in US 1859 imports, Confederate state exports certainly paid for around half, but nowhere near the 75% to 87% sometimes claimed.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "That the name "Baltic" would be painted out before the ship sailed, would be noted.
The reason why it was painted out could only be conjectured, but it would most definitely leave the impression that someone was up to no good."

Whether the ship's name was painted out or not (I've not seen where it was) would be reasonable, considering that President Buchanan's January resupply ship, Star of the West was fired on by secessionist batteries and forced to withdraw.
So clearly, they knew both it's origin and purpose.

If painting out Baltic's name could cause enough confusion in Confederate minds to let it pass does seem to us dubious, especially since Lincoln told Gov. Pickens a resupply ship was coming.
But perhaps at the moment of painting, somebody hoped it might help.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "What did anyone expect when such propaganda is constantly spouted by Union Apologists?"

But no "Union Apologist" on Free Republic ever knowingly "spouts" such a lie.
We are only here to correct the constant stream of lies coming from pro-Confederates, we knowingly create none of our own, certainly nothing as ridiculous as the example you reported.

[rustbucket]

I also read that the steamers had loaded British coal for the trip. Wondering about the significance of this? Anyone know?

I gather that British coal, which was mostly bituminous coal I think, would make a different color smoke that the then available American coal. I imagine it was all part of an effort by the North to lull Southerners into thinking that they were not American ships. Obi Wan voice: "These are not the American ships you are looking for."

Similarly, the Powhatan, the ship that Lincoln secretly diverted from the Fort Sumter fleet to instead aid the effort to reinforce Fort Pickens, had been intending to sail into Pensacola Bay flying "English colors" until Meigs stopped them.